Why extended open access at Stonehenge won’t happen

The argument over Stonehenge solstice access seems endless. As one campaigner recently wrote: “It is so upsetting watching EH repeat themselves over & over again rejecting sound ideas , My opinion of them won’t change until they actually move forward on the access issues”. For “moving forward on access issues” we can perhaps read “give us what we want, increased access”. Against that is EH’s position, also recently on display – through the words of Peter Carson, their Head of Stonehenge (but you have to read them carefully): “To see the sun rise over the site on the longest day of the year in the same way our ancestors would have done is a very moving moment ….. people come to do their own thing within the landscape”.

That seems to be an effective acknowledgement people have a right to celebrate the solstice at Stonehenge, in line with the Court of Human Rights ruling (that members of any genuine religion have a right to worship in their own church). The campaigners can perhaps take it as good news for it suggests EH aren’t currently minded to seek a reversal of the ruling. However, they should also note that he also talks of seeing the sun “rise over the site”….. “in the same way our ancestors would have done” and people doing “their own thing within the landscape”. You can’t see the sun rise over the site from inside the stones, only from further back in the landscape, and he says doing that is moving specifically because that’s what our ancestors celebrated. The message seems to be: EH does not currently dispute a right to celebrate solstice at Stonehenge but it does feel the authentic way to do it is from outside the stones.

That view has recently been boosted by their 3D laser scanning which suggests midwinter sunset had special meaning for the builders and that they made deliberate efforts to create a dramatic spectacle for those approaching from the north east. As Susan Greaney, EH’s Senior Properties Historian said: “It has given further scientific basis to the theory of the solstitial alignment and the importance of the approach to the monument from the Avenue in mid winter”. Thus EH is in a difficult position: it faces constant demands for increased access to the interior of the circle at solstice sunrises while it’s own research is telling it “outside at sunset” not “inside at sunrise” is what mattered to the builders. It is being asked to expand a celebration whose time and place it increasingly sees as erroneous.

Would the Court of Human Rights have ruled differently if the laser scanning report had been published at that time? Who knows? However, while the current situation is that EH has no right to oppose the celebrations, it is less certain that opposing an expansion of the celebrations would be invalid. Article 11 of the Human Rights Act says: “No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights [of members of a religion to worship in their own church] other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” There has to come a point where the number of attendees inside the stones has health and safety or public order implications and EH might well suggest that the critical point has already been exceeded as evidenced by the fact they are biannually shown to be powerless to prevent many people climbing on the stones.

In essence then, EH’s “failure to move forward on the access issue” as the campaigners see it may well make perfect sense from EH’s perspective for it may see the celebrations as a false expression of the purpose of the monument and prejudicial to it’s statutory duty to safeguard the monument and the public – and indeed constantly damaging to it’s own reputation as a statutory guardian. If so it is highly unlikely to be sympathetic to calls to expand proceedings in either scale or duration. In addition it may consider it has a strong legal case to refuse such calls. For their part the campaigners are unlikely to win either the academic argument (that celebrating inside the circle is “authentic” – and it would be strange if they sought to) or the legal one (that a bigger celebration wouldn’t bring bigger health and safety risks) so their calls are unlikely to ever be successful. Better perhaps to engage with EH to change the celebrations to something more akin to what the builders intended? That at least might involve pushing at an open door rather than one that may always stay firmly locked.

_________________________________________________________

More about ways the solstice celebrations could be reformed here and here and here and here

It seems a mispresumption that there is only one single antique moment of celebration, and a single place in the stonehenge landscape that was designated for that.
Stonehenge landscape has been celebrated since the ice age totem poles buried under english heritage’s car park, stones raised by confirmed psychedelic revellers and throughout recorded and recent history has hosted a rich variety of human celebrations which do not conform to such a narrow and unbelievable perspective.

The significance of the 3D laser scanning was that it provided evidence for the intended use of the monument. That cannot be said of “stones raised by confirmed psychedelic revellers” during recorded or recent history for the monument was constructed in prehistory.

Similarly, posts under EH’s car park provide no evidence for celebrations inside the stones, only in the car park. EH might well be amenable to celebrations there should anyone propose it but the most convincing evidence does seem to point to the end of The Avenue as being the most appropriate spot – if evidence and authenticity are important.

However, some religious adherents are anything but reasonable. The Court of Human Rights ruling, that members of any genuine religion have a right to worship in their own church, shouldn’t give carte blanche to anybody to worship anywhere they like, and especially not just because they would like to argue that ‘their church’, built a few millennia ago by adherents whose religion they can’t know except by tenuous analogy, was definitely a site of acoustic performances, natural light shows, psychedelic revelling or unmitigated joy.

Just because various people in recent history come up with different theories about Stonehenge’s origins and purpose, whether backed up with research or not, doesn’t necessarily make any of them true or a genuine reflection of what those cultures originally intended.

And to add to the ‘balance’ that Tingly Spine wants, it is also a ‘temple’ of death/the dead. It shows no sign of ‘parties’ or large gatherings in prehistoric times, unlike its nearby neighbour henge, Durrington Walls, which does. Even the Avenue has surprisingly little wear.

A good and convincing arguement, although to state that a larger amount of people would be a health and safety risk, and cause public disorder is greatly unfounded. There are many festivals and gatherings of people with far larger attendance.

At the last winter solstice gathering one person out of 5000+ was arrested, it was low key regarding security and it was a much nicer experience. The only thing that I can say is that it was far too short a period of time, where we only get time to make a token gesture of our thanks for our lives and to express our thanks to the sun for it’s life sustaining influence. As for not seeing the summer sunrise from inside the stones is hogwash, I have only seen one amazing sunrise in many times of going, when the suns first rays line up with the stones. It is an experience that I have no words to describe.
As for the winter solstice it is a cerimony that should truly take place at sunset, and I have not yet witnessed an alignment yet but I have great hopes of doing so in the future.

Although extending our access is one of the issues we think is the most important, it is not our only request. Extending our access, but having no regard for the other things, would definitely improve our open access. But if the security are still allowed to decide who should enter and who shouldn’t, to act in ways disrespectful to outright bullying then it would still be an unenjoyable ordeal to enter the stone circle.

The fact is that we as a community would normally bring everything we need to have an enjoyable celebration, but we are now not allowed to do this. To the point where attendees where not even allowed bring in umbrellas when it was pouring with rain, but when we ask for some form of protection from the rain we are told it is not EH’s responsability.

Fact of the matter is that at the begining of our managed open access there was much more tolerence in some ways. People could be naked if they wished, you could burn sage smudge sticks for incense and much more. The security and police where another matter, but I wont go over old ground.

EH may in the end deline our aims, I really hope not. But our situation will not change unless we ask and are prepared to talk with those involved to see if they are possible. Further more we this time want to gather the support of the general public, and then it cannot be claimed that we are just a bunch of pee-d off dropouts and druids.

Well,“to state that a larger amount of people would be a health and safety risk, and cause public disorder is greatly unfounded.”

For the avoidance of doubt, the assertion was with regard to the number of people inside the stones. You can safely have more people outside but obviously you can’t add to a solid mass of people crowded inside without creating additional risks.

“ As for the winter solstice it is a cerimony that should truly take place at sunset”.

We totally agree with you, as does EH, so hopefully you will incorporate a call for that in your representations to EH forthwith. Incidentally, the same evidence that points to the authenticity of celebrating the winter solstice at sunset also points to the authenticity of celebrating it from the end of The Avenue so hopefully you will also incorporate that in your representations too.

The summer solstice involves a different set of discussions so maybe it would be good to simplify the process by splitting them into two stages and try to get mutually acceptable winter access arrangements agreed with EH first? From what you say it seems as if you’ll find an open door waiting to be pushed, so why not?

“ As for the winter solstice it is a ceremony that should truly take place at sunset”….’We totally agree with you, as does EH’
Do EH think this? really? why was there no sunset access at Winter Solstice 2012 then?

mmmm I just wonder why you would state that EH totally agree, because at the end of the day there was literally no provision at all for a sunset ceremony either within the stone circle or without, by the NT/EH. The public toilets were not open until 7.30 am. I did attend the November RT meeting, the emphasis for 2012 was to push for an extension of the morning ceremony to coincide with the end of the Mayan Calender being celebrated worldwide and EH agreed to make a decision on the day. In answer to your question yes, I definitely will be raising this. Mine to you is why do you think this would be an administrative nightmare?

“mmmm I just wonder why you would state that EH totally agree, because at the end of the day there was literally no provision at all for a sunset ceremony either within the stone circle or without, by the NT/EH.”

My speculation is the same as the one I have just offered.

“I did attend the November RT meeting, the emphasis for 2012 was to push for an extension of the morning ceremony to coincide with the end of the Mayan Calender”

Not from EH there wasn’t! (Which again is consistent with the explanation I have just proposed).

“why do you think this would be an administrative nightmare?”

Oh pull the other one! Have you ever tried to organise 5,000 people milling around in the dark inside a World Heritage Monument that you have a statutory duty to protect?! Which bit of that isn’t an administrative nightmare?!

‘Oh pull the other one! Have you ever tried to organise 5,000 people milling around in the dark inside a World Heritage Monument that you have a statutory duty to protect?! Which bit of that isn’t an administrative nightmare?’

No, I haven’t tried to organise 5000 people milling around the Stonehenge site because I have not put myself in the position of being responsible for it, for being a guardian of our heritage. If I was though and I knew that many people were going to attend I would do just that, organise it ….not just get a Temporary TRO and wing it on the day!

In any case, whether you think you would do a better job than EH or not, it would be a far more manageable event if it took place outside the stones so perhaps that’s what should be focused on rather than worrying about who did what in the past.

“The significance of the 3D laser scanning was that it provided evidence for the intended use of the monument. That cannot be said of “stones raised by confirmed psychedelic revellers” during recorded or recent history for the monument was constructed in prehistory.”. There is some evidence, in fact. There is evidence that the Stonehenge builders were the Beaker People, and there is evidence that these people were revellers. Also there was a widely published article in the last few years in which was given an archeological perspective that the state of the landscape was as though it had been “trampled by many thousands of dancing feet”. The headline was along the lines of Stonehenge being like a prehistoric rave. Early initiatory practices were often characterised as celebratory and bawdy, like the ancient greek comus, and psychedelic like the Elysian mysteries with their powerful hallucinogenic plants.

have the solstice access in the daytime instead of the nighttime, this simple move would bring equality fairness and aesthetic appeal to the event, with no further need for intrusive lighting or overbearing security

Indeed, just about everything points to your solution – daytime celebrations culminating in the sunset – being the one that solves most of the issues. Of course, it has the additional overwhelming virtue of being the celebration that is most likely to be authentic. Why would anyone want to celebrate in any other way?

Yet ironically, those who might be expected to be most keen to celebrate in a relaxed, easy going and above all authentic way aren’t all calling for the same thing as you.

I would suggest that if it’s possible (temporary boarding/hoarding and trackways etc) to have rock concerts and music festivals on such ‘hallowed’ turfs associated with cricket/football stadia and stately homes; surely the protection of the ground and indeed the monuments at Stonehenge, is not beyond the scope of current human endeavour and achievement. If a sum (perhaps a modest and appropriate entrance fee) could be levied to cover the costs of the protection, perhaps an agreeable solution to all parties could be reached?